Talk:Cephalopoda

From Palaeos.org

Jump to: navigation, search
(on taxa)
 
Line 63: Line 63:
I've already noted my objections to regarding Nautiloidea as "valid". I'm not going to change John's usage of it in the article (I can't see that turning into anything other than a flame war, and I don't see how that would benefit anyone). But would "widely used" or "generally recognised" potentially be more neutral alternatives? [[User:Christopher|Christopher]] 07:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I've already noted my objections to regarding Nautiloidea as "valid". I'm not going to change John's usage of it in the article (I can't see that turning into anything other than a flame war, and I don't see how that would benefit anyone). But would "widely used" or "generally recognised" potentially be more neutral alternatives? [[User:Christopher|Christopher]] 07:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Infraclass/Superorder==
 +
 +
Hi again, and after somewhat of a break.
 +
 +
You may notice that at the top we have three principal cephalopod groups listed at subclasses, following current convention. Further down class Cephalopoda is subdivided rather into infraclasses.  First off, unless both are needed, is there much of a difference between  and infraclass and a superorder. Since subclass is a higher ranked taxon and I believe takes precedence one needs a subclass to infra. On the other hand doesn't superorder imply orders to super. Getting back on track Mary Wade, 1988, proposed (used) superorders which fit rather well into the infraclass scheme presented.  I suggest for the impertinent sake of conformity that infraclass be changed to superorder, with subclasses retained.  Just a thought.
 +
 +
Cheers.  [[user:John M|JohnM]]11/30/11

Latest revision as of 02:31, 1 December 2011

Personal tools